The present or maybe the future chairperson of the European Parliament, a German socio-democrat Martin Schulz, announced the removal of the cross and other religious symbols from public places. As he emphasized, everyone should personally express his own religion, but public places should remain ‘neutral’. Well, and here is the whole truth about the European leftist party which feels disturbed by the view of the cross, church building, a priest in a cassock, and even a small cross on a nurse’s or a stewardess’ neck. Here is the leftist truth about religious freedom, and, in fact, freedom of expressing any religion, so that believers would remain neutral, so that they would not demonstrate their faith in public places.

The leader of the German leftist party showed off his babble typical for this political option thinking that places deprived of religious symbolic become ‘neutral’. In other words, he thinks that such people can be neutral in their worldviews, free themselves and respecting the freedom of others. Whereas, the danger are believers in God, people of conservative opinions, with principles, of strong religious beliefs, defending their rights.

Surely Mr. Martin Schulz knows that similar opinions were proclaimed by his compatriot Karol Marx and were implemented by the comrade W. I. Lenin. He is also known from the sinister ‘neutral’ words: ‘God is my personal enemy. I prefer a non-believing exploiter or a millionaire than a believing worker’. Moreover, it is not enough to say that it was his preference, Lenin simply ordered to murder those who had not rejected God, whereas he replaced the emptiness after God with his political party. It became immortal. Lenin became immortal. There was something satanic in this ‘neutrality’. And it is still so.

Therefore, the statement of Martin Schulz and other leftist activists similar to him shows how they want to break Christian Europe by: fighting against the family, depriving Catholic nations of Christian symbols, pushing religion away onto the margin. Doesn’t it mean moving the cross into the private sphere?!

Commentators were right to emphasize that it is another bottom of the statement of M. Schulz: it is the fear of the leftist party of the victory of Christian powers in the European Parliament and, generally, in national elections. Indeed, one can observe among most EU countries mobilization of rightist groups which are Catholic and are still organizing big protests in many European capital cities in defence of marriage and family, against killing unborn children (in Poland it is seen in the general protest of parents against the gender ideology).

Referring to the euro-elections on Sunday, many Polish parliamentarians, Catholics, will be in Brussels like sheep in the herd of wolves: they will be told to leave their faith in God behind the doors of the Parliament, they will be forced to believe that they should not have some opinions in the public sphere. As a result, they will become more dangerous for faith than those who declare to be atheists. It is because of their ‘neutrality’, their going on compromise, that people without any principles in the EP will still pass resolutions being the most obvious sign of the ‘death culture’, fighting the family, attacking the human identity. Shortly speaking, it is because of hiding their beliefs in the public life by the Christians that we have not only the crisis of Christianity, but also the collapse of the European culture and morality.

In relation to it, it is necessary to ask the question: what should the parliamentarian-Catholic be like? Should he identify himself with his faith or rather be over it, acknowledge that faith is a private matter and it should be left behind the door of the parliament? I will say in a straightforward way that a politician – Catholic cannot avoid presenting his personal beliefs and similarly as atheists and agnostics do it – he should represent his opinions where it is possible.

Unfortunately, many politicians – Catholics succumb to the opinion proclaimed today that the condition of democracy are ethical pluralism and tolerance. Whereas democracy is not based only on formally acknowledged legal system, nor the very participation of citizens in political elections, but – if it is to serve the man truly and respect his dignity – it must be based on the proper concept of the person. So, although there is not something like the Catholic country or Catholic policy, there are, however, Christian Catholic politicians who treat politics seriously as service to the man and care for the common welfare. It is possible and necessary to see one’s engagement in the spirit of the Gospel, and in statutory issues – to follow the social teaching of the Church.

The words of Martin Schulz should be – I believe – a warning for most Christian euro-deputies, that they have entered among the herd of wolves which are enemies of the Church. May them be not as sheep.